The painting of Halil Akdeniz is comprehensive and rich in content, painting which allows for a reading in depth on the vertical axis while at the same time being open to a flat reading on the horizontal axis.

At first glance the viewer does not realize that these paintings transform themselves and come into being by resisting along a certain front.

Of course it is also true that even a spare, hasty reading with the naked eye gives one the sense that painting with such a foundation, involving such structure, can be no simple matter. A background reality intrudes on our minds with the question “Why would someone want to make a monochromatic picture that disregards nuances of color and drags its feet in motifs which could be termed unique to itself?”

To reflect that painting is a problem of mediation might provide a clue in this matter, but that line of reasoning would go beyond Akdeniz’s art to embrace all paintings in the most general sense, whereas it is possible at the outset to establish that Akdeniz’s work sets forth a plastic attitude all its own as it brings together a set of internal problematics.

In any case, every painting is ultimately an abstraction.

In transcending its stages of internal evolution, a painting whose point of departure is the external, objective world usually contradicts even its own reality.

This is the point where the will creating the picture is transcended and the painting installs its own particular language.

Derived from the aesthetic preferences of plasticity itself, this language of course has certain connections with the objective language built up while signifying entities. Nevertheless, this is absolutely not a didactic phenomenon. It can only be captured, and perceived, through the hints provided by its own themes. And only to this degree can it be understood, even though there is no imperative to do so.

The art of Halil Akdeniz first takes shape in the precincts of this paradox: Certain ordinary (yet not so ordinary) objects scattered around the boundaries of everyday life mesh with the dimensions that arise from imbuing them with meaning, and the spectator finds that he or she starts being dragged between on the one hand the thematic depth of this art, art which forms at the intersection of the two axes, and on the other hand its superficial allusions.

Going back to the observation I made at the beginning, what I mean is this: The viewer of these paintings is caught between signs which are relatively more familiar, of relatively longer standing, and signs which, again relatively speaking, he or she may remember but whose layers of significance are somewhat elusive.

Unless the other signs in the painting are juxtaposed, there is no a priori ease in fathoming why the legible numbers on a range pole are situated next to triangles or the letter ‘phi’ ( ? ).

Whereas the first problem involves the triangulation points to be noticed when reading the picture in depth.

In some cases, for instance, what strikes one are the aspects of the painting which directly integrate, mesh, and articulate with the space they occupy. The nature of the painting-monochromatic, arousing no feeling of warmth or affinity in the viewer, yet promising that if one approaches the bearings offered up by the mind it will yield its secrets-is prised loose from the work itself, which becomes one with the whiteness of the wall (or the texture of whatever other space it stands before).

And in the end, after shedding all its signs the picture takes as benchmark a set of phenomena on the borders of reason, among them this characteristic of the single-colored texture-which is practically the painting itself.

In that case could there be a connection between them? If there is, does its objective aspect, the aspect that can be read through objective language, intersect with the allusions beyond that aspect?

Such questions can be answered on two planes: The first consists of elements that are conceived perhaps before the painting is executed, that are formed in the mind of its creator and which during the process of elucidation will match perfectly with that mind. The second is made up of elements detected only with the feelers of the viewer when the picture is being contemplated, or one might say consumed, elements which are concerned only with the viewer’s reality and about which there is no need to look for any other truth.

The fundamental effort to make an objective reading will involve the first category, while the inputs of a more romantic, subjective reading will be located in the second group.

When viewing and studying the art of Halil Akdeniz it is helpful to understand that these two dimensions run side by side and parallel to each other, for it will thus be possible to see how the two axes of reading intersect so as to form a Cartesian system.

As a perusing eye, I can objectify the signs which Akdeniz takes as his point of departure and which he puts in every work.

I can, for instance, find and explain some objective equivalent for a triangle; describe it, for example, as a traffic sign. Or correctly perceive alternating black and white descending and ascending marks as being related to geodesic measurement.

As another example, I can interpret the sign ( ? ) as a letter of the Greek alphabet, noting and listing its characteristics in that alphabet. But in doing all this, will I have arrived at the truth of the painting ?

From a certain standpoint we must answer this question in the affirmative. For each sign has an objective meaning which is not really open to discussion. But discussing this point is itself not sufficient. For I will use them as a starting point to proceed towards another truth and asseverate that with their monochromatism these paintings draw on a minimalist inspiration, while on the plane of the signs we have mentioned they refer to pop art.

Indeed, although the art of Halil Akdeniz is complex in its spareness, expressionist in its silence, and seems to be open only to semiotic analysis, it is the aspect we have mentioned that transforms it into narrative painting.

In that case I have also elucidated the fundamental characteristics of his art. Now let us explore them in a little more depth.

Is it possible, I wonder, to maintain that a given painting, or all paintings, are narrative even when they are not?

In a way, yes, it is! For ultimately each painting creates its own microcosmos, and that little universe does not end with the painting. It starts and finishes, or does not finish, in the viewer. Whenever a work of art leaps out of itself to start acting in its spectator, at that moment it becomes narrative no matter how exclusive (one might say minimalist) it may be. And there is no requirement that says its message absolutely must be identical with what it carries in its own structure. At that stage the painting is affected by the consciousness of the viewer and by the spin-offs of that consciousness, and they are the factors which shape the work. Indeed, this is what saves the painting (even though these factors may merge with mistaken hermeneutics) from turning into a nullity in space.

In the art of Akdeniz as well one finds hints gleaned from this grand pathway. Chief among the elements which make up this theme one could cite the inner tension which marks these paintings. Taking the viewer out of context by thrusting him or her between signs from antiquity and those of the everyday, the canvas carries that viewer onto another plane.

While the signs from antiquity keep him or her at a more romantic point, the spare-seeming complexity of the everyday is more disturbing. What’s more, that which I have described as ‘everyday’ is no ordinary sign. On the contrary, these ‘things’ are difficult both to grasp and to describe-so much so that for the viewer everything can suddenly turn around. A sign from a forgotten language and context can come across as quite familiar and sincere, while that for which the establishment of a connection with the world we live in is desired and expected may seem much more remote.On the plane leading to the depths of the painting this is an intriguing junction, as the viewer notes that on this axis the canvas executes a time shift. But this shift emerges as a problem of mediation, in the following manner: the line and tension between today and yesterday are artificial, and cannot be predicted in advance. The general definitions, that today is what is known and yesterday is what has been forgotten, turn out to be meaningless. Everything is a matter of awareness. The present may be forgotten, or unlearned and unfamiliar, while the past may have current topicality.

As Akdeniz installs this phenomenon behind the picture’s thick wall, he must (knowingly or unknowingly; for even during its creation a work of art can lose connection with everything to experience the freedom of its own odyssey by developing an ‘episteme’) be availing himself of the volume and form that characterize painting.

The voids mentioned above, for example, have I believe a double meaning. They are bifurcated. On the one hand they show the natural state of antique remains, but to elucidate this one must examine the way paint is used in these pictures. The art of Halil Akdeniz is dominated by vigorous but insistently single-toned color. This color borders on gray with a greenish cast, and together with the signs placed upon it at first glance gives the viewer the impression of a fossil. And indeed this brittleness is closely associated with the surface of remains found in the bosom of nature and which bear the traces of antiquity (here an allusion has been made with the letter ? ). Such being the case, it is necessary to explain that first and foremost these paintings provide this match-up.

Secondly, no categorization is possible for ancient remains found in nature. Perhaps the everyday is transformed into antiquity, and perhaps in that boundlessness it is the other way around. In the texture of nature itself, such differentiation is out of the question. Earth, marble, the grass which springs from between the slabs, the embellishment on the marble-they are all the same thing. There is no way to open the door of anything and enter.

And so, emphasized by the color texture and signs on the canvas, this phenomenon reaches a new phase as the canvas voids become one with its space. At this point the painting is no longer a purely plastic affair. Rather it turns into a matter of volume. The picture itself becomes ancient, and space natural. The two merge, and this in turn involves the logic associated with an installation. The old and new, the natural and man-made-all articulate together.

After all this, is there any reason not to say that the art of Halil Akdeniz is an art of interpenetration?

Any painting may have an instinctive point to this degree. The important thing is that its structural and ontological features be sufficiently charged to complete and transform this ‘intention’. This is what I believe defines the quality of the picture confronting us. For in the desire to implant the articulation I have touched upon, the essential problematics of the painting also take on a similar spiral structure. And in this manner the art of Halil Akdeniz is able to juxtapose its instinctive dimension with an inner tragedy.

I have purposely used the word tragic. Actually, when one thinks of all these points together it is possible, alongside all the rationality and coolness that mark these paintings, to speak of their ‘pastoral’ side.

It is precsely here that one must mention the following point: A question which has been debated at length is whether the tragic commences with dialectic or idealism. The truth is that “dialectic” answers this question beter than “idealism.” Indeed, the layering in Akdeniz’s work, and the match-ups at its various phases, like the way in which these paintings bear down upon themselves in several distinct dimensions, could only have been accomplished through a dialectical attribution. This makes itself felt in the tragedy implanted at the heart of these paintings. The connection between the pastoral and the natural, the stress on the ancient, the shaping of the present through reference to the past-all continually underscore a concealed tragic element. This tragedy lies hidden at the heart of these paintings and emerges as their unseen face.

In spite of everything, one must take account of two great bodies upon which these paintings, with all these aspects, are set.

Highly ‘charged’ as they are, these paintings are nevertheless in essence extremely reductive and economical. At the same time, I do not use either of the terms subjectively or with the aim of underlining a value judgement. On the contrary, both concepts are fundamental values underlying the formation of this art.

The first of them, as the paintings constantly revolve around a single color, makes a clear reference to minimalism, which finds support on the plane of their imagery as well. In the imagistic utterance of the paintings too, they produce a few symbols, withdraw them, and are satisfied.

At the same time the works avoid the pitfalls of minimalism and manage not to be lost in its dead ends. The minimalistic approach at any rate enters the paintings passively and in a secondary manner. Nevertheless, it is there.

Minimalism also appears to have asserted itself as a kind of plane of reckoning for these pictures. As the painting pursues its own narrative / interpretive interests, and as these threaten always to expand to a broad canvas, they are forced to resist on a ground reduced to its smallest proportions.

Planes considerably susceptible to mimicry and romanticism are left by Akdeniz to be concealed through a spare approach. The use of a single color and symbols that reappear come as an extension of this exploration and of the search for a delicate balance. Thus the planes of tension in these pictures are established consecutively.

With the heavy emphasis laid on the everyday by this phenomenon, the paintings are also pushed to the outskirts of pop art.

To be sure, pop art’s passion for the object, its concern not with seeking the mystery of the object but rather with giving it in terms of its living image and objectivity, these are somewhat remote from Akdeniz’s painting, in which there are no objects associated with the mad consumerism of the everyday. On the contrary, these are rejected out of hand as the works continually adopt what might be called a noble stance. Nevertheless, the symbols I have mentioned above, filtered through the activity of life and indeed through its habits, ensure that these paintings have both the static quality of minimalism and the vividness of popular culture. Thus fire and ice coexist, side by side on the same plane.

It emerges that the art of Halil Akdeniz is swept up by the floodwaters of its own internal odyssey and transformations. This is owing to his insistence on exploring a certain plane in depth. Painting which refuses to give itself away or surrender, secret painting, now is violating its own borders. It is evident, and even proclaimed, that space and the external world are going to enter Akdeniz’s painting, but in my opinion this should not be taken simply as an extension of its disturbingly determined quality.

No indeed! Here too the artist is superimposing the painting itself with what is pictorial in its space to add a new frequency to the tragic aspect I have touched upon earlier.

At a time when the mimetic increasingly distances itself, when second- and third-degree realities begin to dominate the pictorial plane with a logic that transcends even representation, it is interesting that Akdeniz emphasizes the emptied frame as a border to the painting.

Thus, the contradiction between representation and correspondence entering the works as a new body, the inner truth unique to this art awaits future developments as a new problematic.